Monday, October 17, 2005

[Media]

The Times on Judy Miller

If the Times were honest about their own malfeasance in the Plame/Miller debacle, they were brutally honest about Miller's. The Miller they describe was cavalier, sloppy, arrogant, evasive, and ultimately, not perfectly truthful about her activities--a far cry from Miller's own account. More significantly, it's a pretty strong indictment that Miller is hiding something.

A quick recap: we know that Miller was one of the Times' main foreign correspondent, and that she operated with almost complete autonomy. She became very close to the administration's inner circle, and used them (and their sources like Ahmed Chalabi) to forward the case for war. When Joe Wilson began poking holes in that case, the White House mounted a campaign to discredit him and went to their go-to gal at the Times.

We don't really know what happened next, because Judy's not saying. She refused to let the Times see her notes in preparing their article. What we have to go by is the evidence of a coverup.

Valerie Flame
One of the biggest questions is how the name "Valerie Flame" got in Miller's notebook. She claims its in a section different from her notes on Libby--but of course no one can verify that--and that Libby was not her source for the name. She further contends that she had been pursuing a story on Wilson (one was never published) that was killed by her editors. Yet, when
she "made a strong recommendation to my editor" that an article be pursued. "I was told no," she said. She would not identify the editor. Ms. Abramson, the Washington bureau chief at the time, said Ms. Miller never made any such recommendation.
Later, when the WaPo reported that the leaks had been made to six journalists, an editor at the Times asked Miller if she were one of those (she was), and she denied it. So: if she didn't get the name Valerie Flame from Libby, where did she get it? And was she scooped by Bob Novak in doing the administration's dirty work by leaking her name?

Protecting Whom?
After subpoenas were handed down to reporters in the leak case, Miller's met with Libby's. What resulted was a bizarre scene where Miller's lawyers appear to be arguing against Libby's for her right not to testify. In Miller's account, she claims to have detected reservation on the part of Libby, but there's no evidence there ever was any.
"I never once suggested that she should not testify," Mr. Tate [Libby's lawyer] wrote. "It was just the opposite. I told Mr. Abrams that the waiver was voluntary."

Ms. Miller said in an interview that she was waiting for Mr. Libby to call her, but he never did. "I interpreted the silence as, 'Don't testify,' " Ms. Miller said.

She and her lawyers have also said it was inappropriate for them to hound a source for permission to testify.

Mr. Tate, for his part, said the silence of the Miller side was mystifying.

"You never told me," Mr. Tate wrote to Mr. Abrams recently, "that your client did not accept my representation of voluntariness or that she wanted to speak personally to my client." Mr. Abrams [Miller's lawyer] does not dispute that.

Given this situation, when Miller's case came up before the judges, they of course did not find in her favor: "She has the keys to release herself," the judge said. "She has a waiver she chooses not to recognize." So again: why did Miller work so hard to avoid Libby's permission to testify? Why did she sit in jail when she had his dispensation? Who exactly was she protecting?

It was a fairly happy ending for Miller. Upon being released from jail, she was taken by the Times' publisher to the Ritz-Carlton " for a massage, a manicure, a martini and a steak dinner." Tomorrow she will recieve a First Amendment award from the Society of Professional Journalists. And she's likely to get a book deal out of the events. Don't hold your breath on that one, though--her reportage thus far hasn't been particularly reliable.

______________________
Blogosphere commentary: Wonkette | Fishbowl DC | Firedoglake | American Leftist |
Also: Cheney may be involved in leak inquiry (Bloomberg)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

man, you sure are dedicating alot of time (read: wasting) with this debacle...

since you're so interested, what do you think will ultimately come of it? i really doubt anyone in the inner circle is going down at this point. more likely, Miller will get a nice fat job with the Republican party in the near future...

Jeff Alworth said...

you sure are dedicating a lot of time (read: wasting)

Isn't that the definition of blogging?

Also, see link below about possible Cheney involvment...

Anonymous said...

Well, even if Cheney's aide factors in importantly, I still say it's time for a new topic...

Anonymous said...

ohoho!

well, the Cheney link is definately interesting.